At UN Pension Fund, Cocheme Coup Includes OIOS Confusion, Words Instead of Action

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at the UN: News Analysis

UNITED NATIONS, July 2 -- That in much of the UN System there is a lack of accountability, and of transparency, is highlighted by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services' June 29 response to questions posed three weeks earlier to OIOS chief Inga Britt Ahlenius, about a seeming failure by UN Joint Staff Pension Fund CEO Bernard Cocheme to follow through on OIOS findings and recommendations about irregularities in procurement by two officials still at the Pension Fund.

       A continuing lack of clarity -- Cocheme claims that no action was required, while OIOS remains that action was taken -- comes at a strange time, in which Ban Ki-moon is moving to outsource $9 billion from the Pension Fund, while Cocheme is lobbying to be given full control over the rest of the Pension Fund, taking over the investment role from Ban Ki-moon's representative, and UN Controller, Warren Sach.

            In the run-up to the Pension Board meeting which starts next Monday, some representatives on the Pension Board have acceded to Cocheme's urging to campaign for what's being called "Cocheme's coup." They have written letters criticizing Sachs' counter-lobbying, and have come out in favor of further insulating Cocheme from UN oversight.

     OIOS' most recent response is set forth below, in full. First, some background: in Investigative Report 0543/05, OIOS found that the Pension Fund's Paul Dooley, with the assistance of the Fund's Dulcie Bull and UN Procurements Sanjaya Bahel, had improperly awarded the Pension Fund's information technology contracts to Mr. Dooley's ex-boss. OIOS specifically recommended that "action be taken against" Mr. Dooley, Ms. Bull and Mr. Bahel.

      In a June 29 response to Inner City Press, OIOS' Florin Postica both says that OIOS stands behind a February 8 statement, that disagreeing with OIOS' findings, Cocheme "intends to take no action" regarding Mr. Dooley and Ms. Bull, and, contradictorily, that Cocheme did in fact take (unspecified) action. 

    As of this writing on July 2, Mr. Dooley and Ms. Bull still work at the Pension Fund -- Ms. Bull has reportedly been on leave since June 11 which will continue, sources say, through July, while Cocheme attempts to gain from the Pension Board a post upgrade for her, as well as Nora Fitzgerald and Alan Blythe. 

UN in Geneva, Cocheme coup not shown

    At a June 7, 2007 press conference concerning the conviction of Mr. Bahel in another case, Inner City Press asked Ms. Ahlenius to explain the status of OIOS' recommendations concerning the Pension Fund's Mr. Dooley and Ms. Bull. Ms. Ahlenius did not answer, but rather recommended that Inner City Press call and ask her staffer Florin Postica. Inner City Press immediately called Mr. Postica, leaving Inner City Press' phone number at the UN -- which is public record, and in the directory of the UN Correspondents Association -- and asking an answer. No answer was received.

    Three weeks later, Inner City Press ran into Ms. Ahlenius in the hallway at the UN and asked about getting an answer. Ms. Ahlenius recommended a second communication to Mr. Postica. (As set forth below in Mr. Postica's June 29 response, he states that he attempted to return the June 7 call.) Inner City Press made this follow up in writing:

Mr. Postica (cc Ms. Ahlenius) --

Hello. At Ms. Ahlenius' June 7 press conference, I asked for clarification of seeming discrepancies between OIOS' Report of Investigation 0543/05 about the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund, the Feb. 28, 2007 statements of UNJSPF CEO Bernard Cocheme, and the response I'd received from the Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary General (see below).

Ms. Ahlenius said to call you, which I did, from the phone in my office, the number to which I left with the person who took the message. Just now, Ms. Ahlenius said you had tried to call, but that I must have called from a payphone. To ensure receipt and response, I am sending this by email.

In a nutshell, why has OIOS appeared to allow the UNJSPF and its CEO to take no action on OIOS Report of Investigation 0543/05 other than to tell the two named staff members  to in the future avoid the "possible misperception" that they are acting in an "non-prudent manner" (as he put it in his Feb. 28 press conference, which remains online at http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/pressconference/pc070228pm.rm) ?
Does OIOS stand behind, or contest, the statements made about OIOS by Mr Cocheme in
http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/pressconference/pc070228pm.rm?  Does OIOS contest the content of the statement previously provided by the Office of Spokesperson for the Secretary General, below?

Finally, for now, in light of the "June 2" press release by UNMIS (distributed yesterday to UN HQ press corps, and June 11 by UNMIS) about an OIOS investigation that cleared UNMIS, and a letters sent to the Sudanese newspaper Akhir Lahza to "provide OIOS with evidence" or publish retractions, this is a request for updates on and a statement about the long-delayed investigations of MONUC (gold and guns, and torture) and whether OIOS has any involvement in the purported DPKO investigation of allegations that its peacekeepers in Liberia roughed up journalists earlier this month.

There are other OIOS questions, but these are outstanding and pressing. Thank you in advance.

paste

OIOS' Report of Investigation 0543/05
Subj: Your question on OIOS and the Pension Fund
Date: 2/8/2007 2:48:05 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Farhan Haq [at] un.org
To: Inner City Press

In March 2006, the OIOS completed an investigation into allegations of possible conflict of interest, favoritism and mismanagement at the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund. Based upon the evidence adduced, OIOS concluded that several staff members - including two Senior UNJSPF staff - have acted improperly in connection to contracts for information technology services awarded to a consultant retained by UNJSPF.

OIOS issued several recommendations in this case, including that UNJSPF management take appropriate action against its two staff. The Chief Executive Officer of UNJSPF informed OIOS that he disagrees with the findings and recommendations of the report of investigation - as regards the actions of his staff - and advised that he "intends to take no action" with regard to them. OIOS advised him that pursuant to its mandate, it will report his response to the General Assembly.

Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 59/272, the report is available to Member States upon request. It has already been released, in redacted form, to two Member States who have requested it.

            Strangely, OIOS now says both that it stands behind Mr. Haq's February 8 statement, that disagreeing with OIOS' findings, Cocheme "intends to take no action" regarding Mr. Dooley and Ms. Bull, and, contradictorily, that Cocheme did in fact take (unspecified) action. What can be said, as above, is that Mr. Dooley and Ms. Bull still work at the Pension Fund -- Ms. Bull has reportedly been on leave since June 11 which will continue, sources say, through July, while Cocheme attempts to gain from the Pension Board a post upgrade for her, as well as Nora Fitzgerald and Alan Blythe.  Here now Mr. Postica's response:

Subj: Re: Press question from June 7 re UN Pension Fund, and MONUC and Liberia, thank you 
Date: 6/29/2007 12:02:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: postica [at] un.org
To: Inner City Press
CC: ahlenius [at] un.org, matthew.lee [at] innercitypress.com
 

1.        First, thank you very much for providing us with the opportunity to clarify the matters contained in your e-mail below. Before responding to your specific questions, please let me point out that immediately upon returning in my office on 7 June 2007, and after learning that you called me, I called the number which you have left with my colleague but could not reach you. In your subsequent article, when commenting about this matter, you indicated that I did not return your call. While this is correct, your readers may have gotten the wrong impression that I did not return your call for another reason than that mentioned above. But I am pleased that this issue has now been clarified, and again, please rest assured that in a spirit of transparency and openness we are ready to provide you with any information required without, of course, compromising the confidentiality of our investigations.

2.        Second, OIOS stands by the statement of the Office of the Spokesperson mentioned in your e-mail below. Indeed, in his response of 11 May 2006 to OIOS, Mr. Cocheme indicated that he intended to take no action against his two staff. During the last meeting between OIOS and Mr. Cocheme, this matter was ultimately clarified. OIOS was satisfied with the explanations provided and the action taken by Mr. Cocheme and closed this matter.

3.        Additionally, please further note that OIOS has responded to the memorandum of Mr. Cocheme dated 9 June 2006 (from which he read excerpts during the press conference), and also that, subsequently - especially after several meetings between Mr. Cocheme and OIOS at his request - Mr.Cocheme informed OIOS that he would take action against his staff, and did so.

4.        Third, please also be advised that the investigation report into the MONUC case has recently been finalized and will be issued shortly. I cannot comment on the Liberian matter, but will seek information from my colleagues in the field.

5.        Thank you very much and best regards.

            A key phrase from the above is this -- "Mr.Cocheme informed OIOS that he would take action against his staff, and did so."  What actions were taken? A mere recommendation that they in the future avoid the "possible misperception" that they are acting in an "non-prudent manner" (as he put it in his Feb. 28 press conference, which remains online at http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/pressconference/pc070228pm.rm) ?  Is that all the "action" the OIOS requires, after finding corruption in procurement processes at the UN?  Developing.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Search WWW Search innercitypress.com

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service.

            Copyright 2006-07 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com -